Author
Topic: When Bishop Hilarion Walked Out (Read 9180 times)

In an earlier post, Orthodox blogger Timothy Flanders had pointed to the Ravenna document, drawn up in 2007 at another meeting between Catholic and (some) Orthodox representatives.

Unfortunately, Bishop Hilarion, the representative of the Moscow patriarchate, walked out when he saw that a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church was there. Apparently the Russian Orthodox Church refused to recognize the Estonian’s autocephaly, which had been sponsored by the Church of Constantinople.

Or was it simply more rebellion at work? This game of ever-shifting borders and the need for national churches as accoutrements to phyletism is totally disgusting. I want a Missouri Orthodox Church, so if we ever get a national Orthodox Church, I say we just throw up our middle fingers and demand that we have 50 autocephalous Orthodox Churches arranged by state, and then after that we'll finally have built a perfect kingdom, like a bunch of idiotic politicians.

It's like Orthodoxy never left the patristic era when people walked out of councils, accused each other of heresy, had major territorial disputes, deposed their primates, and fought hard to ascertain the truth. Had Nestorius or Arius been born in the modern era, their teachings would probably have been branded as legitimate opinions by the more 'enlightened' churches of the modern era which avoid potential conflicts in the name of 'unity,' even to their own detriment.

« Last Edit: December 05, 2011, 11:17:28 AM by Cavaradossi »

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

It's like Orthodoxy never left the patristic era when people walked out of councils, accused each other of heresy, had major territorial disputes, deposed their primates, and fought hard to ascertain the truth. Had Nestorius or Arius been born in the modern era, their teachings would probably have been branded as legitimate opinions by the more 'enlightened' churches of the modern era which avoid potential conflicts in the name of 'unity,' even to their own detriment.

Amen.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

It was not personal pride but politics. The MP still thinks it can control the churches that were under it in the days of the Russian Empire and in the days of Soviet Empire.The same thing happened when Bulgaria became free from the Ottoman Empire and the EP refused to see it's control decrease.

In an earlier post, Orthodox blogger Timothy Flanders had pointed to the Ravenna document, drawn up in 2007 at another meeting between Catholic and (some) Orthodox representatives.

Unfortunately, Bishop Hilarion, the representative of the Moscow patriarchate, walked out when he saw that a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church was there. Apparently the Russian Orthodox Church refused to recognize the Estonian’s autocephaly, which had been sponsored by the Church of Constantinople.

What do you make of Bishop Hilarion’s walk-out at the mere presence of a delegation from a fellow Orthodox Church? Was he justified in taking such an action or is it simple pride at work?

Devin's blog article is based on the misconception that the Estonian Orthodox Church is autocephalous. It is not. It is autonomous under Constantinople.

Now the rules of engagement at the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue state that the Orthodox shall send two representatives from each autocephalous Church. The Roman Catholic Church shall send a matching number. .

So, no matter what disputes Moscow has with Constantinople over the Estonian Church, Estonia has no right to participate.

Moscow pointed out that it has 7 autonomous Churches under its wing and if it sent delegates from each, it would outnumber the other Churches at the Meetings.

I find it strange that Devin emphasises over and over his desire for good relationships and for unity but he also seems to delight in taking cheap shots at Orthodoxy. He also, as in this instance, speaks out of a lack of knowledge, not knowing the quite significant difference between autocephalous and autonomous Churches.

In an earlier post, Orthodox blogger Timothy Flanders had pointed to the Ravenna document, drawn up in 2007 at another meeting between Catholic and (some) Orthodox representatives.

Unfortunately, Bishop Hilarion, the representative of the Moscow patriarchate, walked out when he saw that a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church was there. Apparently the Russian Orthodox Church refused to recognize the Estonian’s autocephaly, which had been sponsored by the Church of Constantinople.

What do you make of Bishop Hilarion’s walk-out at the mere presence of a delegation from a fellow Orthodox Church? Was he justified in taking such an action or is it simple pride at work?

Devin's blog article is based on the misconception that the Estonian Orthodox is autocephalous. It is not. It is autonomous under Constantinople.

Now the rules of engagement at the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue state that the Orthodox shall send two representatives from each autocephalous Church. The Roman Catholic Church shall send a matching number. .

So, no matter what disputes Moscow has with Constantinople over the Estonian Church, Estonia has no right to participate.

Moscow pointed out that it has 7 autonomous Churches under its wing and if it sent delegates from each, it would outnumber the other Churches at the Meetings.

I find it strange that Devin emphasises over and over his desire for good relationships and for unity but he also seems to delight in taking cheap shots at Orthodoxy. He also, as in this instance, speaks out of a lack of knowledge, not knowing the quite significant difference between autocephalous and autonomous Churches.

He gets a -5

Is there a judge or committee which determines whether the rules have been adhered to or not?

In an earlier post, Orthodox blogger Timothy Flanders had pointed to the Ravenna document, drawn up in 2007 at another meeting between Catholic and (some) Orthodox representatives.

Unfortunately, Bishop Hilarion, the representative of the Moscow patriarchate, walked out when he saw that a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church was there. Apparently the Russian Orthodox Church refused to recognize the Estonian’s autocephaly, which had been sponsored by the Church of Constantinople.

What do you make of Bishop Hilarion’s walk-out at the mere presence of a delegation from a fellow Orthodox Church? Was he justified in taking such an action or is it simple pride at work?

Devin's blog article is based on the misconception that the Estonian Orthodox is autocephalous. It is not. It is autonomous under Constantinople.

Now the rules of engagement at the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue state that the Orthodox shall send two representatives from each autocephalous Church. The Roman Catholic Church shall send a matching number. .

So, no matter what disputes Moscow has with Constantinople over the Estonian Church, Estonia has no right to participate.

Moscow pointed out that it has 7 autonomous Churches under its wing and if it sent delegates from each, it would outnumber the other Churches at the Meetings.

I find it strange that Devin emphasises over and over his desire for good relationships and for unity but he also seems to delight in taking cheap shots at Orthodoxy. He also, as in this instance, speaks out of a lack of knowledge, not knowing the quite significant difference between autocephalous and autonomous Churches.

He gets a -5

Is there a judge or committee which determines whether the rules have been adhered to or not?

I don't know. Why are the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches not allowed to send 2 representatives each? Who ruled to exclude them from the dialogue?

In an earlier post, Orthodox blogger Timothy Flanders had pointed to the Ravenna document, drawn up in 2007 at another meeting between Catholic and (some) Orthodox representatives.

Unfortunately, Bishop Hilarion, the representative of the Moscow patriarchate, walked out when he saw that a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church was there. Apparently the Russian Orthodox Church refused to recognize the Estonian’s autocephaly, which had been sponsored by the Church of Constantinople.

What do you make of Bishop Hilarion’s walk-out at the mere presence of a delegation from a fellow Orthodox Church? Was he justified in taking such an action or is it simple pride at work?

Devin's blog article is based on the misconception that the Estonian Orthodox is autocephalous. It is not. It is autonomous under Constantinople.

Now the rules of engagement at the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue state that the Orthodox shall send two representatives from each autocephalous Church. The Roman Catholic Church shall send a matching number. .

So, no matter what disputes Moscow has with Constantinople over the Estonian Church, Estonia has no right to participate.

Moscow pointed out that it has 7 autonomous Churches under its wing and if it sent delegates from each, it would outnumber the other Churches at the Meetings.

I find it strange that Devin emphasises over and over his desire for good relationships and for unity but he also seems to delight in taking cheap shots at Orthodoxy. He also, as in this instance, speaks out of a lack of knowledge, not knowing the quite significant difference between autocephalous and autonomous Churches.

He gets a -5

Is there a judge or committee which determines whether the rules have been adhered to or not?

I don't know. Why are the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches not allowed to send 2 representatives each? Who ruled to exclude them from the dialogue?

It might be interesting to see how the Estonian Orthodox Church got invited in the first place, and if there had been any kind of oversight of the invitations.

In an earlier post, Orthodox blogger Timothy Flanders had pointed to the Ravenna document, drawn up in 2007 at another meeting between Catholic and (some) Orthodox representatives.

Unfortunately, Bishop Hilarion, the representative of the Moscow patriarchate, walked out when he saw that a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church was there. Apparently the Russian Orthodox Church refused to recognize the Estonian’s autocephaly, which had been sponsored by the Church of Constantinople.

What do you make of Bishop Hilarion’s walk-out at the mere presence of a delegation from a fellow Orthodox Church? Was he justified in taking such an action or is it simple pride at work?

A lot of pride, but not Met. Hilarion's. The Phanar told the Estonian bred, born, baptized, ordained, consecrated and speaking Patriarch of Moscow had to recall his Estonian bred, born, baptized, ordained, consecrated and speaking Metropolitan of Tallin and All Estonia, the canonical territory of Moscow. So Moscow said it would have no dealings with the Phanar's non-Estonian speaking Cypriot Greek from Zaire and the hierarchy he represented.

The invitations to the Greek metropolitan in Estonia dried up when Moscow let it known that the OCA, an autocephalous Church, would be coming to the next meeting after Ravenna.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

In an earlier post, Orthodox blogger Timothy Flanders had pointed to the Ravenna document, drawn up in 2007 at another meeting between Catholic and (some) Orthodox representatives.

Unfortunately, Bishop Hilarion, the representative of the Moscow patriarchate, walked out when he saw that a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church was there. Apparently the Russian Orthodox Church refused to recognize the Estonian’s autocephaly, which had been sponsored by the Church of Constantinople.

What do you make of Bishop Hilarion’s walk-out at the mere presence of a delegation from a fellow Orthodox Church? Was he justified in taking such an action or is it simple pride at work?

Devin's blog article is based on the misconception that the Estonian Orthodox is autocephalous. It is not. It is autonomous under Constantinople.

Now the rules of engagement at the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue state that the Orthodox shall send two representatives from each autocephalous Church. The Roman Catholic Church shall send a matching number. .

So, no matter what disputes Moscow has with Constantinople over the Estonian Church, Estonia has no right to participate.

Moscow pointed out that it has 7 autonomous Churches under its wing and if it sent delegates from each, it would outnumber the other Churches at the Meetings.

I find it strange that Devin emphasises over and over his desire for good relationships and for unity but he also seems to delight in taking cheap shots at Orthodoxy. He also, as in this instance, speaks out of a lack of knowledge, not knowing the quite significant difference between autocephalous and autonomous Churches.

He gets a -5

Is there a judge or committee which determines whether the rules have been adhered to or not?

I don't know. Why are the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches not allowed to send 2 representatives each? Who ruled to exclude them from the dialogue?

It might be interesting to see how the Estonian Orthodox Church got invited in the first place, and if there had been any kind of oversight of the invitations.

the Phanar was pushing the envelope.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I have to agree with those who have pointed out that Estonia is an autonomous church under Constantinople, not an autocephalous church with its own primate. It has no right to sit at the conference as per the previous arrangement of representatives. No one even claims that Estonia is autocephalous. The OCA, though disputed, is recognized by several autocephalous churches as being so. I tend to believe it is myself, but I'm biased.

While it makes me sad that such things are happening, I can't be upset at His Eminence for walking out, since there was an obvious breach in agreement occurring.

Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy

In an earlier post, Orthodox blogger Timothy Flanders had pointed to the Ravenna document, drawn up in 2007 at another meeting between Catholic and (some) Orthodox representatives.

Unfortunately, Bishop Hilarion, the representative of the Moscow patriarchate, walked out when he saw that a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church was there. Apparently the Russian Orthodox Church refused to recognize the Estonian’s autocephaly, which had been sponsored by the Church of Constantinople.

What do you make of Bishop Hilarion’s walk-out at the mere presence of a delegation from a fellow Orthodox Church? Was he justified in taking such an action or is it simple pride at work?

Devin's blog article is based on the misconception that the Estonian Orthodox is autocephalous. It is not. It is autonomous under Constantinople.

Now the rules of engagement at the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue state that the Orthodox shall send two representatives from each autocephalous Church. The Roman Catholic Church shall send a matching number. .

So, no matter what disputes Moscow has with Constantinople over the Estonian Church, Estonia has no right to participate.

Moscow pointed out that it has 7 autonomous Churches under its wing and if it sent delegates from each, it would outnumber the other Churches at the Meetings.

I find it strange that Devin emphasises over and over his desire for good relationships and for unity but he also seems to delight in taking cheap shots at Orthodoxy. He also, as in this instance, speaks out of a lack of knowledge, not knowing the quite significant difference between autocephalous and autonomous Churches.

He gets a -5

Is there a judge or committee which determines whether the rules have been adhered to or not?

I don't know. Why are the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches not allowed to send 2 representatives each? Who ruled to exclude them from the dialogue?

Because the EOs representatives would throw a fit and start demanding that Eastern Catholics cease to exist.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

In an earlier post, Orthodox blogger Timothy Flanders had pointed to the Ravenna document, drawn up in 2007 at another meeting between Catholic and (some) Orthodox representatives.

Unfortunately, Bishop Hilarion, the representative of the Moscow patriarchate, walked out when he saw that a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church was there. Apparently the Russian Orthodox Church refused to recognize the Estonian’s autocephaly, which had been sponsored by the Church of Constantinople.

What do you make of Bishop Hilarion’s walk-out at the mere presence of a delegation from a fellow Orthodox Church? Was he justified in taking such an action or is it simple pride at work?

Devin's blog article is based on the misconception that the Estonian Orthodox is autocephalous. It is not. It is autonomous under Constantinople.

Now the rules of engagement at the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue state that the Orthodox shall send two representatives from each autocephalous Church. The Roman Catholic Church shall send a matching number. .

So, no matter what disputes Moscow has with Constantinople over the Estonian Church, Estonia has no right to participate.

Moscow pointed out that it has 7 autonomous Churches under its wing and if it sent delegates from each, it would outnumber the other Churches at the Meetings.

I find it strange that Devin emphasises over and over his desire for good relationships and for unity but he also seems to delight in taking cheap shots at Orthodoxy. He also, as in this instance, speaks out of a lack of knowledge, not knowing the quite significant difference between autocephalous and autonomous Churches.

He gets a -5

Is there a judge or committee which determines whether the rules have been adhered to or not?

I don't know. Why are the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches not allowed to send 2 representatives each? Who ruled to exclude them from the dialogue?

Because the EOs representatives would throw a fit and start demanding that Eastern Catholics cease to exist.

nevermind.

« Last Edit: December 09, 2011, 03:16:52 PM by Schultz »

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

I have to agree with those who have pointed out that Estonia is an autonomous church under Constantinople, not an autocephalous church with its own primate. It has no right to sit at the conference as per the previous arrangement of representatives. No one even claims that Estonia is autocephalous. The OCA, though disputed, is recognized by several autocephalous churches as being so. I tend to believe it is myself, but I'm biased.

Does the Greek Orthodox Church recognize the OCA as autocephalous? Doesn't the Greek Orthodox patriarch in Constantinople hold theprimacy of honor in the Orthodox Church?

I have to agree with those who have pointed out that Estonia is an autonomous church under Constantinople, not an autocephalous church with its own primate. It has no right to sit at the conference as per the previous arrangement of representatives. No one even claims that Estonia is autocephalous. The OCA, though disputed, is recognized by several autocephalous churches as being so. I tend to believe it is myself, but I'm biased.

Does the Greek Orthodox Church recognize the OCA as autocephalous? Doesn't the Greek Orthodox patriarch in Constantinople hold theprimacy of honor in the Orthodox Church?

Question one: No. But they see them as canonical, and not schismatics.Question two: Yes, but not as prime and not as honorable as he thinks.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

I have to agree with those who have pointed out that Estonia is an autonomous church under Constantinople, not an autocephalous church with its own primate. It has no right to sit at the conference as per the previous arrangement of representatives. No one even claims that Estonia is autocephalous. The OCA, though disputed, is recognized by several autocephalous churches as being so. I tend to believe it is myself, but I'm biased.

Does the Greek Orthodox Church recognize the OCA as autocephalous? Doesn't the Greek Orthodox patriarch in Constantinople hold theprimacy of honor in the Orthodox Church?

Question two: Yes, but not as prime and not as honorable as he thinks.

So then, no?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I have to agree with those who have pointed out that Estonia is an autonomous church under Constantinople, not an autocephalous church with its own primate. It has no right to sit at the conference as per the previous arrangement of representatives. No one even claims that Estonia is autocephalous. The OCA, though disputed, is recognized by several autocephalous churches as being so. I tend to believe it is myself, but I'm biased.

Does the Greek Orthodox Church recognize the OCA as autocephalous? Doesn't the Greek Orthodox patriarch in Constantinople hold theprimacy of honor in the Orthodox Church?

It just ain't that sorta primacy. He can't unilaterally decide that the OCA is not an autocephalous body.

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Doesn't the Greek Orthodox patriarch in Constantinople hold the primacy of honor in the Orthodox Church?

Yes, but what that means is in dispute. To this day, there is no single canonical process for creating an autocephalous church. Constantinople has done it by declaring its own territory autocephalous in the past, and Church Council established the relations between the ancient sees of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem. Other churches have declared regions autonomous (like Jerusalem with the Church of Sinai) but never autocephalous, like Russia has with the OCA. The Russian argument (and the OCA one, obviously) is that we were the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate, and therefore the administrative goings-on within it are not the EP's concern. The EP, however, argues differently.

Being the First Among Equals doesn't equate to being the universal bishop of the Church.

Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy

Doesn't the Greek Orthodox patriarch in Constantinople hold the primacy of honor in the Orthodox Church?

Yes, but what that means is in dispute. To this day, there is no single canonical process for creating an autocephalous church. Constantinople has done it by declaring its own territory autocephalous in the past, and Church Council established the relations between the ancient sees of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem. Other churches have declared regions autonomous (like Jerusalem with the Church of Sinai) but never autocephalous, like Russia has with the OCA. The Russian argument (and the OCA one, obviously) is that we were the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate, and therefore the administrative goings-on within it are not the EP's concern. The EP, however, argues differently.

Being the First Among Equals doesn't equate to being the universal bishop of the Church.

So, just to understand the situation of the OCA:The Greek patriarch (or Church) says the OCA is not autocephalous.The Moscow patriarch (or Church ) says the OCA is autocephalous?Or do I have it wrong?Thanks.

Doesn't the Greek Orthodox patriarch in Constantinople hold the primacy of honor in the Orthodox Church?

Yes, but what that means is in dispute. To this day, there is no single canonical process for creating an autocephalous church. Constantinople has done it by declaring its own territory autocephalous in the past, and Church Council established the relations between the ancient sees of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem. Other churches have declared regions autonomous (like Jerusalem with the Church of Sinai) but never autocephalous, like Russia has with the OCA. The Russian argument (and the OCA one, obviously) is that we were the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate, and therefore the administrative goings-on within it are not the EP's concern. The EP, however, argues differently.

Being the First Among Equals doesn't equate to being the universal bishop of the Church.

So, just to understand the situation of the OCA:The Greek patriarch (or Church) says the OCA is not autocephalous.The Moscow patriarch (or Church ) says the OCA is autocephalous?Or do I have it wrong?Thanks.

yes, although technically there is no such thing as "the Greek Patriarch," though de facto that is the EP. The problem is that the Phanar, which has granted autocephaly in its capacity as a "Mother Church" is insisting that it has done so in its capacity as "primus inter pares," i.e. no other "Mother Church" can do so. Antioch, however, granted autocephaly to Georgia and later recognized the autocephaly of Abkhazia. The Phanar granted autocephaly to Poland, although the Mother Church was the Patriachate of Moscow, which autocephaly was later voided, only to be followed by autocephaly granted by Moscow. Moscow granted autocephaly to Czechoslovakia, although its Mother Church was the (presently) Serbian Patriarchate, the transference I am not entirely clear about, and the Phanar refused to recognize it for 47 years until 1998.

Moscow is not alone in its recognition of the OCA. A plurality of the Churches recognize it. Only the (de facto) Greek Church (Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Cyprus, Church of Greece) are adamantly opposed to such recognition.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I think the only way to deal with the Roman CAtholc communion is to treat them as a prayer organisation that needs to converted to Orthodoxy. They are no different than any other group of people that claim they are Christians. They aren't Orthodox who broke off a few years ago and have maintained the same beliefs and are seeking to re-join the Orthodox Church. I don't have time for re-unification talks, I do have time for we're interested in joining the Christian Church, the Orthodox Church talks. Simply put there isn't re-unification, there is merely conversion that has to take place on the roman catholic communion's part.

In an earlier post, Orthodox blogger Timothy Flanders had pointed to the Ravenna document, drawn up in 2007 at another meeting between Catholic and (some) Orthodox representatives.

Unfortunately, Bishop Hilarion, the representative of the Moscow patriarchate, walked out when he saw that a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church was there. Apparently the Russian Orthodox Church refused to recognize the Estonian’s autocephaly, which had been sponsored by the Church of Constantinople.

Or was it simply more rebellion at work? This game of ever-shifting borders and the need for national churches as accoutrements to phyletism is totally disgusting. I want a Missouri Orthodox Church, so if we ever get a national Orthodox Church, I say we just throw up our middle fingers and demand that we have 50 autocephalous Orthodox Churches arranged by state, and then after that we'll finally have built a perfect kingdom, like a bunch of idiotic politicians.

So, why are you a member of a Serbian Church, which may be regarded by some as an "accoutrement to phyletyism"? And, not in Serbia itself but thousands of miles away in the United States of America, where there is already an autocephalous church.

Or was it simply more rebellion at work? This game of ever-shifting borders and the need for national churches as accoutrements to phyletism is totally disgusting. I want a Missouri Orthodox Church, so if we ever get a national Orthodox Church, I say we just throw up our middle fingers and demand that we have 50 autocephalous Orthodox Churches arranged by state, and then after that we'll finally have built a perfect kingdom, like a bunch of idiotic politicians.

So, why are you a member of a Serbian Church, which may be regarded by some as an "accoutrement to phyletyism"? And, not in Serbia itself but thousands of miles away in the United States of America, where there is already an autocephalous church.

May I butt in...? Vladika Longin used to be my bishop down here in Australia and New Zealand. A thoroughly excellent bishop. And from what I hear of the other Serbian bishops in America they are of high quality too. That in itself could move a person to choose the Serbian Church over the local autocephalous Church.

Or was it simply more rebellion at work? This game of ever-shifting borders and the need for national churches as accoutrements to phyletism is totally disgusting. I want a Missouri Orthodox Church, so if we ever get a national Orthodox Church, I say we just throw up our middle fingers and demand that we have 50 autocephalous Orthodox Churches arranged by state, and then after that we'll finally have built a perfect kingdom, like a bunch of idiotic politicians.

So, why are you a member of a Serbian Church, which may be regarded by some as an "accoutrement to phyletyism"? And, not in Serbia itself but thousands of miles away in the United States of America, where there is already an autocephalous church.

Perhaps the closest parish to his house is Serbian? I certainly can't think of any OCA parishes which aren't over 30 miles away from where I live, and perhaps Alveus is in the same situation. Also, I hear Serbians allow for beer on fast days; although, maybe that's just a rumor put forth by the disgruntled Greeks who (presumably) forgo beer on fast days.

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Or was it simply more rebellion at work? This game of ever-shifting borders and the need for national churches as accoutrements to phyletism is totally disgusting. I want a Missouri Orthodox Church, so if we ever get a national Orthodox Church, I say we just throw up our middle fingers and demand that we have 50 autocephalous Orthodox Churches arranged by state, and then after that we'll finally have built a perfect kingdom, like a bunch of idiotic politicians.

So, why are you a member of a Serbian Church, which may be regarded by some as an "accoutrement to phyletyism"? And, not in Serbia itself but thousands of miles away in the United States of America, where there is already an autocephalous church.

Because not all Churches recognized the autocephalousy of the Church in question, while all Churches recognize the Serbian Church. And then there is the calendar . . .

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

So, why are you a member of a Serbian Church, which may be regarded by some as an "accoutrement to phyletyism"?

Scandalous!! I really object to that, as a monk and a priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church for 20 years.

I have read assessments of the Orthodox Church of America, on the basis of the reported shenanigans of OCA bishops over the last few decades! But politeness would not permit me to make mention of these things.

Scandalous!! I really object to that, as a monk and a priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church for 20 years.

I have read assessments of the Orthodox Church of America, on the basis of the reported shenanigans of OCA bishops over the last few decades! But politeness would not permit me to make mention of these things.

So, why are you a member of a Serbian Church, which may be regarded by some as an "accoutrement to phyletyism"?

Scandalous!! I really object to that, as a monk and a priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church for 20 years.

I have read assessments of the Orthodox Church of America, on the basis of the reported shenanigans of OCA bishops over the last few decades! But politeness would not permit me to make mention of these things.

Honestly, Father, I would expect you to be above such petty mudslinging.

Scandalous!! I really object to that, as a monk and a priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church for 20 years.

I have read assessments of the Orthodox Church of America, on the basis of the reported shenanigans of OCA bishops over the last few decades! But politeness would not permit me to make mention of these things.

As for implying, you just did.

I am really upset that the Serbian Church, my mother, is spoken of as an "accoutrement to phyletyism."

So, why are you a member of a Serbian Church, which may be regarded by some as an "accoutrement to phyletyism"?

Scandalous!! I really object to that, as a monk and a priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church for 20 years.

I have read assessments of the Orthodox Church of America, on the basis of the reported shenanigans of OCA bishops over the last few decades! But politeness would not permit me to make mention of these things.

Honestly, Father, I would expect you to be above such petty mudslinging.

Sorry to not live up to your expectations. But message 31 inspired me to make a response to the mudslinging against the Serbian Church. One must defend one's mother. In fact I took an oath to do so at my ordination.

Im not all that upset. I happen to like phyletyism. What makes one piece of dirt any more holy than another. A people, on the other hand, remain that people wherever they may be. If we are going to have different Churches, they may as well be based on ethnicity than what piece of dirt they are on.

Scandalous!! I really object to that, as a monk and a priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church for 20 years.

I have read assessments of the Orthodox Church of America, on the basis of the reported shenanigans of OCA bishops over the last few decades! But politeness would not permit me to make mention of these things.

As for implying, you just did.

I am really upset that the Serbian Church, my mother, is spoken of as an "accoutrement to phyletyism."

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

So, why are you a member of a Serbian Church, which may be regarded by some as an "accoutrement to phyletyism"?

Scandalous!! I really object to that, as a monk and a priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church for 20 years.

I have read assessments of the Orthodox Church of America, on the basis of the reported shenanigans of OCA bishops over the last few decades! But politeness would not permit me to make mention of these things.

Dear Father, bless!

I am very sorry that I have upset you, and would have responded to Alveus differently had I realized you might react so. I only meant to point out to Alveus (a member of the Serbian Church) that he may have overstepped a line by saying: "This game of ever-shifting borders and the need for national churches as accoutrements to phyletism is totally disgusting. I want a Missouri Orthodox Church, so if we ever get a national Orthodox Church, I say we just throw up our middle fingers and demand that we have 50 autocephalous Orthodox Churches arranged by state, and then after that we'll finally have built a perfect kingdom, like a bunch of idiotic politicians."

For the record, I have two problems with phyletism. First, the accusers at the pan-Orthodox Synod of 1872 had no business accusing anybody of phyletism. Second, the folks who argue against national churches overlook the great commandment--to convert all nations.

There is no question that the Church was a great, if not the major, reason for the emancipation of the Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbians from the Ottoman yoke and therefore were a major element of these "resurrected" nations. Looking at Russia herself, it is obvious that the Church rebuilt that nation after two centuries of Tatar barbarism.

Now, it is also a historical fact that no national church is innocent of being part of movements, state-sponsored or not, that try to homogenize the existing ethnic composition or to expand the nascent nation's boundaries at the expand of other nationalities. The reason why the late 19th Century Ottoman plebiscite in Macedonia and Thrace happened was the continued refusal by the Greek Etnarch of all "Rum" Christians to recognize her Bulgarian members as such. Let us not forget the attempt by Serbia to recreate Dushan's Great Serbian Empire by imposing a similar yoke on the Bulgarian residents of Macedonia after WWI, just as the Greeks had done in their portion of Macedonia. And, both the Greek and Serbian clerics were complicit in those efforts at ethnic cleansing. I am sure that somebody else on this forum will dig up something similar that the Bulgarians did to Greeks and Serbians. Have at it. My point is that all of these national churches made such mistakes. It was part of nation building, it was in the past, and it is now time to move past those precedents. In this regard, at least Patriarch Pavle of blessed memory protested forcefully against the atrocities committed by hisfellow Serbians in the most recent unpleasantries. We need other leaders such as the saintly Patriarch Pavle. But, I do not think that we can go forward by blindly criticizing or defending ethnicities.

So, why are you a member of a Serbian Church, which may be regarded by some as an "accoutrement to phyletyism"?

Scandalous!! I really object to that, as a monk and a priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church for 20 years.

I have read assessments of the Orthodox Church of America, on the basis of the reported shenanigans of OCA bishops over the last few decades! But politeness would not permit me to make mention of these things.

Honestly, Father, I would expect you to be above such petty mudslinging.

Sorry to not live up to your expectations. But message 31 inspired me to make a response to the mudslinging against the Serbian Church. One must defend one's mother. In fact I took an oath to do so at my ordination.

But defending your church by throwing mud at another? I can think of better ways to defend your mother church. However low you think Second Chance may have descended to disparage your church, you descended to the same level by disparaging his. You ever heard the cliche, "two wrongs don't make a right"?

Im not all that upset. I happen to like phyletyism. What makes one piece of dirt any more holy than another. A people, on the other hand, remain that people wherever they may be. If we are going to have different Churches, they may as well be based on ethnicity than what piece of dirt they are on.

Believe it or not, I agree with you. I used to be an ardent proponent of "regularizing" the weird situation in North America. No longer. I do not see any progress until Constantinople gives up on the "primus" idea and the novel interpretation of Canon 28. Also, her main opposition comes from Moscow, which looks more and more a part of the Holy Rus (more entanglement with the State). It is getting to be the pot calling the pan black. So, I think that the best thing to do is to see how the laity votes with their feet and wallets.